SEND ME TIPS:
The Best Ad Critic In The World™ (™ pending) and a freelance copywriter with 25+ years experience and CLIOs, One Shows, Mobiuses (sp?), ADDYs, ANDYs, and a Bobcat Pin (Cub Scouts).
View my complete profile
posted by Mark Copyranter @ 7:55 AM
You're right. That was just awesome.
Thanks for posting. That was amazing. It kept opening out into new areas, pulling in new reference points, as it went along. Really kept my interest - and that never happe...wait, what was I just saying?
what is sad that guardian poses as independent and really is another government tube...
best newspaper in the world
great commercial... and a very good description of the poor state of the world.I-)
the pigs are innocent...i must confess it was me.
New organization sparks riot, which sparks reform. Great message. Hopefully you can tell my eyes are rolling.
What? Without hacking of the wolf's voicemail, it isn't *real* journalism.
This seems a little bit lifted from Jasper Fforde's awesome book, The Big Over Easy. Using CSI forensics, the idea is, the act would have to be premeditated, because it takes so long to bring a huge pot of water to a boil. The main plotline is that they actually did put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and the reconstruction showed he was shot in the head. A mob hit, actually. Funny wonderful book, all of Fforde's stuff is off kilter warped and whipsmart fun.
I think the whole point is that the guardian isn't a newspaper at all. It's a news brand.With a paper element,
I dont' understand this advert. It's cute and all but I think people live it for cuteness and idea without understanding it. The message is not clear. It threw me off then they mentioned "wolf had asthma" and the simulation. Technically that's correct and physically not possible. And you can't kill intruder without consequence.So I am supposed to feel ironical about that? Pigs are right?Also portrayal of pigs, they are not too cute to sympathise.Is this ad in fairy tale world or real world?Perhaps ad is ambiguous about who's right or wrong because it wants to depict that - you have to pick a side yourself and that's what fair media for? But it only confises that's it.At least made me think.
Roddick, the ad isn't about the story of The Three Little Pigs. It's about how the story is reported and how readers interact with each other as new details are reported.
A solid piece, though I wish the last line was "The whole story".
As a longtime and somewhat youngish journalist, this ad gave me a case of the "meh"s, a real lipstick-on-a-pig moment. Getting online readers "involved" in a journalism story has been an endlessly reinvented tripe by newspapers since the dawn of the internet age. What they really mean is "make the comment section more prominent." And given that we all know too well the online comment section is the 21st Century's bathroom stalls, why is this a good thing? If a reader wants to be involved in "reporting" a story, work hard to become a decent journalist or start a fucking blog and hope people read it. I wonder how many downsized journalists' salaries could've been covered for a year for the cost of producing this shitty, cynical ad.
The point was, there isn't a "whole story." There's facts, and opinion, and new developments, and sometimes one thing leads to another, to another, to another. Their pitch is that someone has to keep up with it.I agree. Fantastic advert.
Well, I was journalist for five years before I got into advertising (and next month I'm switching back), so I know both sides of the story here. "Journalists" weren't the target of this ad.It makes me want to read The Guardian, plain and simple. So it works. Everything else is a conversation for another stupid "What's Wrong With Journalism?" forum.
Post a Comment